6. But this Court is unable to agree with the said contentions. The reason is that when the petitioner has been requesting the union, in which he is also a member, to spare an experienced representative to handle his case before the pending disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, it could be seen that the charge memo issued against the petitioner and the charge sheet filed by the CBI related to 19 imputations and 49 sub-imputations. Moreover, the case has been handled by the CBI. Therefore, the reply letter dated 20.02.2017 addressed by the General Secretary of the All India Overseas Bank Employees' Union informing the petitioner that the office bearers in defence assistance are unable to consider his request, cannot be lightly brushed aside. Therefore, the case of the petitioner, in my considered opinion, squarely falls into clause 12(a) (iii) of the bipartite settlement, which states that the bank can grant permission to a delinquent officer to engage a lawyer. In similar circumstances, I have also issued a direction in W.P.No.14401 of 2017 dated 21.06.2017 (M.Ramasamy v. Indian Overseas Bank represented by its Chief Executive Officer/MD incharge), Chennai and another). Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the second respondent is hereby directed to permit the petitioner o engage a lawyer to represent his claim in the domestic enquiry. It is also brought to my notice that the enquiry is posted to 14.11.2017. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to hold the enquiry after two weeks. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is permitted to engage a lawyer, without asking for further time".
